Return to Archive -by date - by topic.
High level? It's stratospheric!
Well, I got that wrong. I had expected the High Level Output Specification (HLOS), which will define the railway the Government is prepared to fund in the new Control Period starting in April 2009 would need to go into considerable detail about service frequencies, journey times and so on.
But on June 15, DfT Rail published a Briefing Note on its role in PR2008. It explained that the HLOS will not go into more geographical or other detail ‘than is absolutely necessary to make the Secretary of State's requirements clear and unambiguous'. The Transport Secretary does not want to become involved in those details ‘that should properly be left to Network Rail and train operator management to settle'.
Quite right too, according to Chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation Chris Bolt . ‘You don't want the railway run by civil servants?' he asked rhetorically, when we met at the Innovation Awards. Well, having seen the hash they made of the timetable in the Greater Western Franchise Invitation To Tender, he has a point.
DfT Rail says that the HLOS will have to cover three ‘key issues' which have been agreed with ORR and Network Rail. They are reliability, safety and capacity.
Currently the Transport Secretary is ‘minded' to specify the improvement in reliability in terms of the Public Performance measure. There would also be a requirement to reduce the percentage of services which are subject to lengthy delays, 30 minutes late or more is quoted.
While the PPM is ‘well-established and well understood' and covers both delays and cancellations, there will be a cross-check that the it reflects passengers' experience of delays. DfT Rail and Passenger Focus are ‘working on the development of a sample-survey'.
On the safety specification DfT Rail argues that the rail industry's ability to quantify risks has improved to the point where ‘the Government is satisfied that a risk-reduction index is an appropriate output measure'. The output specification is likely to require reductions in the risk of death or injury to passengers and railway staff.
However, specifying the increase in capacity to be delivered is, according to DfT Rail ‘one of the most important and difficult challenges in framing the HLOS'. Unlike reliability and safety, there is no single measure for the carrying capacity of the network.
Three parameters are likely to be specified: a forecast of the increase in passenger km; passenger numbers in the peaks; plus a ‘maximum acceptable level of crowding' for planning purposes.
On the principal that output specifications should be as high as possible safety is expected to be specified as a single national measure and reliability as a level of improvement to be achieved across each of the former British Rail passenger sectors Inter-city, Regional and London & South East.
Capacity is less amenable to this simple approach. It is expected to be specified at the level of the 23 individual Network Rail routes since ‘both the demand forecasts and the options for accommodating demand will vary significantly from route to route'.
In addition to three key elements, the Railways Act 2005 also allows the Secretary of State to specify ‘other areas where he is looking for an improvement in rail performance'. DfT says that these ‘other areas' will be specified in the Rail Strategy White Paper, which will be published at the same time as the HLOS in July 2007.
Other ‘obvious' targets quoted include reductions in noise or emissions, quality of passenger information and improvements in the cleanliness and facilities at stations. These are ‘currently difficult to quantify and cost' because they do not lend themselves ‘readily' to output specification, Improvements are likely to come through regulation for environmental issues, commercial pressure in the case of some information requirements and franchise specifications for cleanliness.
DfT rail highlights two low level issues where the rail industry is likely to face significant costs ‘and needs clear steers from Government on how far and how fast it is expected to go'. Accessibility for those with reduced mobility is one: the other is the implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
While I can understand the Government's role in accessibility, it is brave of DfT Rail to willingly get involved with ERTMS which Network Rail says is ‘unaffordable'.
At this point you might expect me to outline how the HLOS will treat freight. Answer – it won't
According to the Briefing Note ‘the HLOS will not cover the reliability of services provided by freight, or other open access operators, or the capacity which they require'. It is down to ORR to determining the reasonable requirements of the freight operators and the charges they pay.
Its decisions will be based on freight operators' forecasts of demand and Network Rail's assessment of the options available to accommodate growth through its Freight Utilisation Strategy. That said, ministers are ‘keen' to ensure that the passenger HLOS is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the freight operators. That's a good idea.
So DfT Rail is working with ORR, Network Rail and the rail freight operators to ‘understand' freight demand forecasts and the options for accommodating growth. This work should ensure that any capacity enhancement projects taken forward ‘make the most sense from a passenger and freight perspective.
Next month, I'll try to link the Government's views on the development of its parallel Statement of Funds Available with an analysis of Network Rail's Interim Strategic Business Plan.
Meanwhile, pending that light summer reading you might like to ponder this earlier example of a High Level Output statement in the form of the 1974 Railways Act. The British Railways Board shall, from 1 January 1975 operate their railway passenger systems as to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present'.